This review is for: PAWS
The submitted article is/has…
[Y ] A very high level of overall quality
[Y ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[Y ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[N/A? ] In the proper format/template
[Y ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[Y ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[Y ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[Y ] No red and/or broken links
[Y ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[Y ] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[N ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[N ] Obtusely redundant
[N ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[N ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[N ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[N ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[N ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[N ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[N ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[N ] Lacking Detail
[N/A ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[N/A ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[Y ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Status: Pending
Notes
Please put in the year of manufacture for these devices, please! ^^
I poked around to tweak a couple of sentences to be a bit more smooth in the grammar department, but other than that formatting and the like seems fine.
What's the maximum range for the network of doppler radars, or is that range 100 kilometers? If so, about how many radars would be needed to reach that range?
I intend to finish this review by:Friday, November 3
This review is for: HOWLS
The submitted article is/has…
[Y ] A very high level of overall quality
[Y ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[Y ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[N/A? ] In the proper format/template
[N ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[Y ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[Y ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[Y ] No red and/or broken links
[Y ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[Y ] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[N ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[N ] Obtusely redundant
[N ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[N ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[N ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[N ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[N ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[N ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[N ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[N ] Lacking Detail
[N ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[N/A ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[Y ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Status: Pending
Notes
Tweaked grammar here too; there was also a small formatting error I patched up. It seems that the network range on the table is listed as being the effective maximum, so I guess that clears up my questions about the PAWS (Though I think it would be helpful to describe that on the other article as well.)
The deployed form has bridges according to the description; are these like, actual bridges to walk on or are they more of suspended wires? Kind of an odd question, this one...
I intend to finish this review by:Friday, November 3
This review is for: KAWS
The submitted article is/has…
[Y ] A very high level of overall quality
[Y ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[Y ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[N/A ] In the proper format/template
[N ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[Y ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[N ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[Y ] No red and/or broken links
[Ehhhhh ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[Y ] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[Ehhhh ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[N] Obtusely redundant
[N ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[N ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[N ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[N ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[Y ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[N ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[N ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[N ] Lacking Detail
[N ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[N/A ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[Y ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Status: Pending
Notes
This wiki article seems really... Excited? The way several paragraphs are written seems to be quite bombastic, for example "Having an accuracy that give most weather satellites a run for their money, the device is aptly named after the mythic Japanese water demon for good reason."
Again, tweaked some parts of the grammar and formatting, nothing special there. I was confused by the fact that it can apparently... elevate artillery? I think that word may need to be looked at again.
You did it in the other articles, so please link the Type 29 communicator.
Even in the future/in Yamatai, 336 hours in advance weather prediction with 99.99% accuracy from up to 400 kilometers is a bit ridiculous for a single structure. How many structures would be needed to increase the range to maximum? (Multiple structures could feasibly increase their range to 800km, though it would likely take more than two units.)
I intend to finish this review by:Friday, November 3
Overall Summary
Please put a year of manufacture for all the devices, that's kiiiiinda important!
In the base article, I recommend a term other than "critters". I don't think that will hold the submission up though if you reaaallly want to keep it...
Other than that it seems this submission is going quite well!
